Poor Diane Arbus - dead for more than 30 years and all she got for it was this lousy movie

Mudsharkbytes

I like Diane Arbus.

I purchased the classic book of her photos, Arbus (with the twins on the cover) when it first came out (shows my age). I treasure that book and to this day still find the photographs in it both singular and fascinating.

What I find offensive is the filmmakers vision - imaginary or not. To attribute Diane Arbus's muse to a tawdry affair she'd had with Jo-Jo the dog-faced boy, her neighbor, does a grotesque injustice to one of the 20th centuries most outstanding visionaries. Not only does is sully Diane as a person and an artist, but it also fails to give the viewer any insight into what it was that truly made her tick.

One reviewer contrasted this film with Amadeus in that Amadeus was filled with Mozarts wonderful music but Fur did not contain a single photo by Diane Arbus. I go one step further. While most if not all of the scenes in Amadeus were imaginary, that film did not give the viewer a false impression of the motivations behind the genius of Mozart. Fur, on the other hand, gives the viewer a wholly false impression of the motivations behind the genius of Diane Arbus, and, imaginary or not, that is the real tragedy of this film.

Whether or not it has great cinematography, or a wonderful score (it does), or great acting etc... is beside the point. If you're going to make up a story about a dead artist, you have the responsibility to be as true to their soul as you possibly can be. If you can't, then take their name off of it. Diane deserved better.

No artist, living or dead, should be so disrespected.

score 2/10

Mudsharkbytes 19 March 2008

Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1843027/